The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Insurance Benefit Package Revision in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

3 Mofid Children Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Health Human Resources Research Center, Department of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

6 High Council for Health Insurance, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran

7 Pharmaceutical Management and Economics Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

8 Heath Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

9 Health Equity Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background 
Iran considers the revision of its health insurance benefit package (HIBP) as a means to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Yet, its decision-making process has been criticised for being weak in terms of accountability and transparency. This paper reports on the development and implementation of the HIBP revision in Iran in the period 2019-2021, employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a framework for benefit package design with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making.

Methods 
The High Council for Health Insurance (HCHI) is coordinating the HIBP revision: it planned the six steps of the EDP framework with support from World Health Organization (WHO) and Radboudumc in 2019, and conducted a pilot project on multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis and treatment in 2020.

Results 
Implementation of the MS pilot project concerned the installation of advisory committees (involving some 60 stakeholders in supportive task forces, a technical working group [TWG] and a national advisory committee [NAC]), the selection of decision criteria (relating to quality of care, necessity, and sustainability), the inclusion of services for evaluation (nine in total), and the assessment and appraisal of these services.

Conclusion 
Implementation of the priority setting process for MS diagnosis and treatment services has likely improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders who engaged in deliberation based on available evidence in a stepwise, transparent process. It is expected to improve the quality of care for MS patients as well as its financial accessibility, at a zero net budget impact. The pilot project has served to help Iran’s health system move faster toward UHC for a broader range of essential health services.

Keywords

  • epublished Author Accepted Version: February 12, 2022
  • epublished Final Version: March 2, 2022

References

  1. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/. Published 2016. Accessed.
  2. UHC Partnership. Country Profile: Iran. https://www.uhcpartnership.net/country-profile/iran/. Accessed April 15, 2021.
  3. Mohamadloo A, Zarein-Dolab S, Ramezankhani A, Jamshid J. The main factors of induced demand for medicine prescription: a qualitative study. Iran J Pharm Res. 2019;18(1):479-487.
  4. Khorasani E, Keyvanara M, Karimi S, Jafarian Jazi M. Views of health system experts on macro factors of induced demand. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(10):1286-1298.
  5. Sajadi HS, Goodarzi Z, Takian A, et al. Assessing the efficiency of Iran health system in making progress towards universal health coverage: a comparative panel data analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:20. doi:1186/s12962-020-00215-x
  6. Mohammadi N, Farahmand F, Hadizadeh Kharazi H, Mojdehipanah H, Karampour H, Nojomi M. Appropriateness of physicians' lumbosacral MRI requests in private and public centers in Tehran, Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;30:415.
  7. Doshmangir L, Bazyar M, Najafi B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Health financing consequences of implementing health transformation plan in Iran: achievements and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(6):384-386. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.18
  8. Nouhi M, Olyaeemanesh A, Jahangiri R, Naderi M. Role of the health technology assessment in revising health insurance benefits package: guiding or shaping? Iran J Public Health. 2020;49(11):2230-2231. doi:18502/ijph.v49i11.4746
  9. Mohamadi E, Takian A, Olyaeemanesh A, et al. Health insurance benefit package in Iran: a qualitative policy process analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):722. doi:1186/s12913-020-05592-w
  10. Ottersen T, Norheim OF. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(6):389. doi:2471/blt.14.139139
  11. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301. doi:1136/bmj.321.7272.1300
  12. Baltussen R, Jansen MPM, Bijlmakers L, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256-260. doi:1016/j.jval.2016.11.019
  13. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-Informed Deliberative Process: A Practical Guide for HTA Bodies for Legitimate Benefit Package Design. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Center; 2021.
  14. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design - part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.159
  15. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design - part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.158
  16. International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). The HTA Toolkit, 2018. Available from: http://www.idsihealth.org/HTATOOLKIT/.
  17. Castro H, Suharlim, Kumar R. Moving LMICs Toward Self-Reliance: A Roadmap for Systematic Priority Setting for Resource Allocation. Management Sciences for Health (MSH); 2020.
  18. Terwindt F, Rajan D, Soucat A. Priority-setting for national health policies, strategies and plans. In: Schmets G, Rajan D, Kadandale S, eds. Strategizing National Health in the 21st Century: A Handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
  19. Bastani P, Hakimzadeh SM, Teymourzadeh E, Nouhi M. Universal health coverage under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s sanctions: strategic purchasing approach in the Iranian health system. Health Promotion International. 2020;36(3):693-702. doi:1093/heapro/daaa070
  20. Dehnavieh R, Rahimi H. Basic health insurance package in Iran: revision challenges. Iran J Public Health. 2017;46(5):719-720.
  21. Dehnavieh R, Rashidian A, Maleki MR, Tabibi S, Ebrahimipour H, Noori Hekmat S. Criteria for priority-setting in Iran basic health insurance package: exploring the perceptions of health insurance experts. HealthMED. 2011;5(6):1542-1548.
  22. Dehnavieh R, Rashidian A, Maleki MR. Challenges of determining basic health insurance package in Iran. Payesh. 2011;10(2):273-283. [Persian].
  23. Hayati R, Bastani P, Kabir MJ, Kavosi Z, Sobhani G. Scoping literature review on the basic health benefit package and its determinant criteria. Global Health. 2018;14(1):26. doi:1186/s12992-018-0345-x
  24. Kabir MJ, Heidari A, Jafari N, Honarvar MR, Behnampour N, Mirkarim SK. Developing basic health services packages: defining a prioritization of effectiveness criteria. Int J Healthc Manag. 2021;14(3):650-655. doi:1080/20479700.2019.1684666
  25. Mohamadi E, Tabatabaei SM, Olyaeemanesh A, et al. Coverage decision-making for orthopedics interventions in the health transformation program in Iran: a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Shiraz E-Med J. 2016;17(12):e40920. doi:17795/semj40920
  26. Nouhi M, Naderi M, Goudarzi Z, Mousavi SM, Olyaeemanesh A. Explicit priority setting approaches in health care coverage policies: a critical review and implications for further research. Evid Based Health Policy Manag Econ. 2018;2(2):125-132.
  27. Nouhi M, Naderi M, Olyaeemanesh A. The revision of the health benefits package in current literature: a concept clarification. Evidence Based Health Policy, Management & Economics. 2017;1(4):253-260.
  28. Viyanchi A, Rajabzadeh Ghatari A, Rasekh HR, Safikhani HR. Administrative process and criteria ranking for drug entering health insurance list in Iran-TOPSIS-based consensus model. Iran J Pharm Res. 2016;15(1):369-381.
  29. Viyanchi A, Rasekh HR, Rajabzadeh Ghatari A, Safikhani HR. Selecting the acceptance criteria of medicines in the reimbursement list of public health insurance of Iran, using the "Borda" method: a pilot study. Iran J Pharm Res. 2015;14(4):1305-1316.
  30. Nouhi M. It is time to develop a values hierarchy in the health system. Arch Iran Med. 2019;22(5):277. [Persian]
  31. Secretariat of High Council for Health Insurance pap. [Persian]. https://shora.behdasht.gov.ir/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%BA%DB%8C%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7. Accessed May 23, 2021.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 11
November 2022
Pages 2719-2726

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 June 2021
  • Revise Date: 28 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 09 February 2022
  • First Publish Date: 12 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics